Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

And remember, lockdowns may still be a thing in the coming weeks

A Trump-supporting governor knows full well that enacting a second lockdown is the end of their career forever. As I just said, Trump doesn't apologize for anything, ever. Anyone trying to follow his rabid fanbase can't, either. They think bring wrong, or more to the point, admitting you were wrong is weakness. Like, you guys do know most MLB players miss more swings than they hit, right?

So yes, they'll let the civilians under their charge die, rather than admit they were wrong. A problem that might not be uniquely Trumpian, but the Venn Diagram is mostly overlap with just a thin border.

[cubby]

-- Not My President

He immediately realized he done fucked up, but tried to move on instead of correcting himself or apologizing. "And they've come up with the AIDS vaccine...not vaccine, sorry, bit of wishful thinking there. But treatment and therapy, that helps even people with HIV or AIDS live full, productive lives with their supporting families..."

The real problem is that he can't put even one coherent sentence together. Looking at transcripts from any statement Resident Deplorable makes off script is horrifying. It's gotten so bad Trumpsters are claiming media coverage of it is Fake News.

[Breccia]

The real problem is that he can't put even one coherent sentence together.

Yeah...that speech on racial inequality is going to be 100% telepromptor just so he doesn't say "The sheriff is near!"

Or...was "police should still use choke holds" the speech on racial inequality? Was this E.O. the statement on race?

[Breccia]

Wait, this wasn't the speech on racial inequality? When's that scheduled for?

Like many things Trump has promised, it's going to be the best ever and it's coming soon you'll see!

I don't know of any specific date. And I suspect one of two things will happen:
1) They triple-check every single word and put it on the largest font they can find. Trump reads it word for word, never making eye contact, and leaves without taking questions.
2) Trump decides he doesn't want to do it anymore and no mention of "cancel" is made.

[Huehuecoyotl]

just so he doesn't say "The sheriff is near!"

Are you suggesting that Trump is fluent in genuine frontier gibberish?

[PhaelixWW]

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. I'm not sure if we're having a semantic issue, but the overall result would have changed dramatically if we'd used the Wyoming method. Hillary would have still lost, but the numbers would have been much closer.

No, sorry, this simply is not true.

Again, Trump won (ignoring faithless electors) by a count of 306-232, which is 56.88%. Under the Wyoming method, the result would have been 370-280, which is 56.92%. That means that he would have won by a larger margin had we been using the Wyoming method in 2016. I have an Excel spreadsheet breaking it all down, but after I did the work myself, I realized that it was already done, and then some, on the wikipedia page for the Wyoming Rule.

Here, I'll post a condensed snippet of the table they have on the page to elaborate the point:

YEAR	WINNER	STANDARD	WYOMING	DIF
1932	D	472-59, (88.89%)	1282-157, (89.09%)	0.20%
1936	D	523-8, (98.49%)	1422-17, (98.82%)	0.33%
1940	D	449-82, (84.56%)	1229-210, (85.41%)	0.85%
1944	D	432-99, (81.36%)	1051-233, (81.85%)	0.49%
1948	D	304-189, (57.25%)	731-461, (56.93%)	-0.32%
1952	R	442-89, (85.24%)	862-170, (83.53%)	-1.71%
1956	R	457-74, (86.06%)	889-143, (86.14%)	0.08%
1960	D	303-220, (56.42%)	600-413, (57.69%)	1.27%
1964	D	486-52, (90.33%)	809-84, (90.59%)	0.26%
1968	R	302-191, (56.13%)	495-325, (55.43%)	-0.70%
1972	R	521-17, (96.84%)	753-24, (96.91%)	0.07%
1976	D	297-241, (55.2%)	437-340, (56.24%)	1.04%
1980	R	489-49, (90.89%)	709-68, (91.25%)	0.36%
1984	R	525-13, (97.58%)	650-15, (97.74%)	0.16%
1988	R	426-112, (79.18%)	529-136, (79.55%)	0.37%
1992	D	370-168, (68.77%)	448-200, (69.14%)	0.37%
1996	D	379-159, (70.45%)	459-189, (70.83%)	0.38%
2000	R	271-267, (50.37%)	324-324, (50%)	-0.37%
2004	R	286-252, (53.16%)	353-319, (52.53%)	-0.63%
2008	D	365-173, (67.84%)	458-214, (68.15%)	0.31%
2012	D	332-206, (61.71%)	402-248, (61.85%)	0.14%
2016	R	306-232, (56.88%)	370-280, (56.92%)	0.04%

As you can see, in only 5/22 cases would the Wyoming method have resulted in gains for the defeated party, which means that 77% of the time, the Wyoming method would have bolstered the winning party's lead. Nor is the benefit limited to one party over another.

Overall, the Wyoming method would have had an average swing of only 0.48% (absolute value) per election. And again, 0.48% in terms of the current EC is only the equivalent of 2.6 EVs.

It's possible that we're doing that thing where one small difference or word is causing an unnecessary argument. In your point you mentioned the difference between the Senate EV and the House EV - and perhaps you could explain why you're separating those, when in the end they are combined.

A state gets electoral votes equal to the number of Congressmen/women they have (except for DC, which simply gets the same EVs as the state with the lowest number of EVs. Any scheme to change the apportionment of the House by definition only affects the House portion of a state's EVs, hence my talking about the difference between Senate EVs, which are static, and the House EVs, which are proportional.

In the case of 2016, Trump won 30 states (plus half of Maine's House EV), which breaks down to 60 Senate EVs and 246 House EVs, for a total of 306 EVs. In any alternate House apportionment scenario, he would still have maintained those 60 Senate EVs, but the House EVs would have been subject to proportional change. In the Wyoming method scenario, that means he'd have won the same 60 Senate EVs, but his House EV would have been 310, for a total of 370 EVs. On the other side, Hillary would have maintained the 42 Senate EVs (20 states + DC's equivalent) and netted 238 House EV (compared to the normal 190), for a total of 280 EVs.

The proportion of House EVs for each candidate would have remained the same (again minus rounding errors). In this case, Trump would have gained 26.0% House EVs and Hillary would have gained 25.3% House EVs, keeping them pretty much in lockstep.

The biggest overall change the Wyoming method (or any other method that increases overall House membership) would have is in diluting the impact that the Senate EVs have on the total. But as I pointed out earlier, House EVs already outweigh the Senate EV by 436 to 102 (breaking DC down like its mirror state), or over 81% of the total. Increasing that share to something larger (84.3% in the case of the Wyoming method) would do very little to change any overall outcome (as seen in the table above), especially given that the House EV, again, must by definition remain proportional.

Arguing that the proportionality of the House EC would stay the same. That is incorrect. Because currently the House EC isn't proportional to the full population - the math behind the vote "worth" comparing states like Montana to Texas.

You're arguing that it's not proportional, simply due to the rounding errors. But it is proportional. House EV "worths" range from 530k to 990k, which is consistent with rounding errors from a base House EV "worth" of about 706k. The more extreme "worth" values, also by definition, only occur when the state is very small, and thus have a very small impact on the overall House EV.

Also, the distribution of states that "benefit" or "suffer" from a higher/lower "worth" are pretty evenly split between the current definitions of blue and red. Furthermore, a state that has low "worth" this year may very well tip the scales at the census, gain another House seat, and thus another EV, which will swap them right into high"worth".

Montana is a perfect example of this. Per our earlier discussion, I pointed out that the census was due to cause some reapportionment. Montana currently has 1 House seat, but they're predicted to move to 2 seats after the upcoming election and reapportionment. Their single House EV currently has the lowest worth at 990k votes per EV. With a jump to 2 House seats, they'll suddenly be a the other end of the spectrum with a worth of around 535k votes per EV.

Rhode Island, on the other hand, will move from 2 House seats and the highest House EV worth of 530k to 1 House seat and a House EV worth of over 1 million.

In other words, with a larger House under the Wyoming method, states' House EV worths would range from 410k-710k per vote instead of the current 530k-990k. But they'd still be proportional, though still subject to rounding errors causing small variances.

[Thekri]

Like many things Trump has promised, it's going to be the best ever and it's coming soon you'll see!

I don't know of any specific date. And I suspect one of two things will happen:
1) They triple-check every single word and put it on the largest font they can find. Trump reads it word for word, never making eye contact, and leaves without taking questions.
2) Trump decides he doesn't want to do it anymore and no mention of "cancel" is made.

Maybe he will do it at the same time as his military parade? Or maybe he can do it in front of the wall that he totally already built, but also hasn't built, but also was always there in the first place.

It is amusing how he never actually cancels things. Like the Coronavirus task force. He was going to shut it down, then everyone told him it was a bad idea, so he didn't shut it down, but also we never heard of it again. Or Infrastructure week, which is definitely going to happen sometime.

[PhaelixWW]

Your original statement was wrong. @Antigannon showed you this, but you didn't read it -- which is concerning, considering what you accused me of. The above quote is you moving the goalposts afterwards.

I gave you every chance, dude.

Don't forget to show your work, bud. Where was my original statement wrong?

Usual drill. 24 hours to use actual quotes and demonstrate my error, or you admit that you can't. Bonus points if you actually use math this time.

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/amer...l-pride-2020-6

MAKE AMERICA SAD AND ASHAMED AGAIN!

In this context, it's no surprise that the COVID Response Tracking Study, conducted in late May by NORC at the University of Chicago, found that just 14% of Americans said they're very happy. Comparatively, 31% said the same in 2018.

...

The study found that more Americans feel depressed right now than they did after the 9/11 terror attacks (38% vs. 33%).

...

COVID-19 also seems to have taken a toll on levels of optimism about the future. "Only 42% believe that when their children are their age their standard of living will be better than their own, whereas 57% said the same in 2018. Since the question was asked in 1994, the previous low was 45% in 1994," the University of Chicago study said.

...

A new Gallup poll found that national pride is at a record low. Though most Americans say they are "extremely proud" (42%) or "very proud" (21%) to be American, both readings mark the lowest Gallup has recorded since it began polling on this issue in 2001.

[-aiko-]

This has legitimately been the most depressing year of my life, so those results don't surprise me. How did we manage to pack shit on top of shit so quickly? Things sure aren't very great right now for Americans.

[cubby]

No, sorry, this simply is not true.

It actually is, by your own admission - at least in a small way. HOWEVER, it's a minor issue, given the apparent percentages and results bearing out - see below.

Again, Trump won (ignoring faithless electors) by a count of 306-232, which is 56.88%. Under the Wyoming method, the result would have been 370-280, which is 56.92%. That means that he would have won by a larger margin had we been using the Wyoming method in 2016. I have an Excel spreadsheet breaking it all down, but after I did the work myself, I realized that it was already done, and then some, on the wikipedia page for the Wyoming Rule.

Here, I'll post a condensed snippet of the table they have on the page to elaborate the point:

YEAR	WINNER	STANDARD	WYOMING	DIF
1932	D	472-59, (88.89%)	1282-157, (89.09%)	0.20%
1936	D	523-8, (98.49%)	1422-17, (98.82%)	0.33%
1940	D	449-82, (84.56%)	1229-210, (85.41%)	0.85%
1944	D	432-99, (81.36%)	1051-233, (81.85%)	0.49%
1948	D	304-189, (57.25%)	731-461, (56.93%)	-0.32%
1952	R	442-89, (85.24%)	862-170, (83.53%)	-1.71%
1956	R	457-74, (86.06%)	889-143, (86.14%)	0.08%
1960	D	303-220, (56.42%)	600-413, (57.69%)	1.27%
1964	D	486-52, (90.33%)	809-84, (90.59%)	0.26%
1968	R	302-191, (56.13%)	495-325, (55.43%)	-0.70%
1972	R	521-17, (96.84%)	753-24, (96.91%)	0.07%
1976	D	297-241, (55.2%)	437-340, (56.24%)	1.04%
1980	R	489-49, (90.89%)	709-68, (91.25%)	0.36%
1984	R	525-13, (97.58%)	650-15, (97.74%)	0.16%
1988	R	426-112, (79.18%)	529-136, (79.55%)	0.37%
1992	D	370-168, (68.77%)	448-200, (69.14%)	0.37%
1996	D	379-159, (70.45%)	459-189, (70.83%)	0.38%
2000	R	271-267, (50.37%)	324-324, (50%)	-0.37%
2004	R	286-252, (53.16%)	353-319, (52.53%)	-0.63%
2008	D	365-173, (67.84%)	458-214, (68.15%)	0.31%
2012	D	332-206, (61.71%)	402-248, (61.85%)	0.14%
2016	R	306-232, (56.88%)	370-280, (56.92%)	0.04%

As you can see, in only 5/22 cases would the Wyoming method have resulted in gains for the defeated party, which means that 77% of the time, the Wyoming method would have bolstered the winning party's lead. Nor is the benefit limited to one party over another.

Overall, the Wyoming method would have had an average swing of only 0.48% (absolute value) per election. And again, 0.48% in terms of the current EC is only the equivalent of 2.6 EVs.

But you argued previously that it would result in NO changes - which means your initial premise was incorrect, using your own logic above. We know at least five times where it would increase gains and change the totals of the Electoral College (while admittedly not changing the result of the vote at all). I know the actual percentages are small, but a change is a change - and that's the point of this piece of the discussion.

Recall you said:

Uh... I don't know why this is hard to understand, but it would change next to nothing because it's still proportional.

Moreover, the wiki article goes on to say that the 2000 election would have resulted in a tie. Bush and Cheney would have won the Contingent election of course, but no one can argue that isn't a change - and a dramatic one.

A state gets electoral votes equal to the number of Congressmen/women they have (except for DC, which simply gets the same EVs as the state with the lowest number of EVs. Any scheme to change the apportionment of the House by definition only affects the House portion of a state's EVs, hence my talking about the difference between Senate EVs, which are static, and the House EVs, which are proportional.

In the case of 2016, Trump won 30 states (plus half of Maine's House EV), which breaks down to 60 Senate EVs and 246 House EVs, for a total of 306 EVs. In any alternate House apportionment scenario, he would still have maintained those 60 Senate EVs, but the House EVs would have been subject to proportional change. In the Wyoming method scenario, that means he'd have won the same 60 Senate EVs, but his House EV would have been 310, for a total of 370 EVs. On the other side, Hillary would have maintained the 42 Senate EVs (20 states + DC's equivalent) and netted 238 House EV (compared to the normal 190), for a total of 280 EVs.

The proportion of House EVs for each candidate would have remained the same (again minus rounding errors). In this case, Trump would have gained 26.0% House EVs and Hillary would have gained 25.3% House EVs, keeping them pretty much in lockstep.

The biggest overall change the Wyoming method (or any other method that increases overall House membership) would have is in diluting the impact that the Senate EVs have on the total. But as I pointed out earlier, House EVs already outweigh the Senate EV by 436 to 102 (breaking DC down like its mirror state), or over 81% of the total. Increasing that share to something larger (84.3% in the case of the Wyoming method) would do very little to change any overall outcome (as seen in the table above), especially given that the House EV, again, must by definition remain proportional.

While the overall outcome might not change, and this was admittedly a surprise to me, the distribution of votes and the watering of the power states like Montana and New Hampshire carry over states like California and Texas is a goal in and of itself. While proportionality would remain, the distribution of EC votes would be more accurate to the population. It would make it much closer to one person one vote, whereas now that is not the case.

I have to admit I was very surprised to see that the results don't dramatically change with the Wyoming Rule in place. I'm going to annoy the holy shit out of you here (if I haven't already - ) by saying that just *feels* wrong. I know, I know - feels have nothing to do with statistics and math and logic. But dammit, it's hard to shake off.

You're arguing that it's not proportional, simply due to the rounding errors. But it is proportional. House EV "worths" range from 530k to 990k, which is consistent with rounding errors from a base House EV "worth" of about 706k. The more extreme "worth" values, also by definition, only occur when the state is very small, and thus have a very small impact on the overall House EV.

Also, the distribution of states that "benefit" or "suffer" from a higher/lower "worth" are pretty evenly split between the current definitions of blue and red. Furthermore, a state that has low "worth" this year may very well tip the scales at the census, gain another House seat, and thus another EV, which will swap them right into high"worth".

Montana is a perfect example of this. Per our earlier discussion, I pointed out that the census was due to cause some reapportionment. Montana currently has 1 House seat, but they're predicted to move to 2 seats after the upcoming election and reapportionment. Their single House EV currently has the lowest worth at 990k votes per EV. With a jump to 2 House seats, they'll suddenly be a the other end of the spectrum with a worth of around 535k votes per EV.

Rhode Island, on the other hand, will move from 2 House seats and the highest House EV worth of 530k to 1 House seat and a House EV worth of over 1 million.

In other words, with a larger House under the Wyoming method, states' House EV worths would range from 410k-710k per vote instead of the current 530k-990k. But they'd still be proportional, though still subject to rounding errors causing small variances.

In this section you're measuring only the House EV's and not the state's total - which includes the Senate pieces of the combined EC vote from each state, which dramatically affect the variables and worth of each vote. Maybe I'm missing something, but per your points above, the static nature of the Senate apportionment of EV is what makes the smaller states EC votes worth dramatically more than the larger states.

Am I missing something here?

[Zan15]

-- Not My President

He immediately realized he done fucked up, but tried to move on instead of correcting himself or apologizing. "And they've come up with the AIDS vaccine...not vaccine, sorry, bit of wishful thinking there. But treatment and therapy, that helps even people with HIV or AIDS live full, productive lives with their supporting families..."

sigh but Biden is the confused one.

[Mayhem]

This has legitimately been the most depressing year of my life, so those results don't surprise me. How did we manage to pack shit on top of shit so quickly? Things sure aren't very great right now for Americans.

Homer Simpson voice - This is the worst year of your life so far.

[Breccia]

Usual drill. 24 hours to use actual quotes and demonstrate my error

I don't have to. @Antigannon did it yesterday. And you helped.

It doesn't work that way, though. The EC doesn't vote based on general popular vote, only the popular vote in the state, which wouldn't change. The proportionality of House EC votes would stay the same, even if it was "weighted" even more compared to the Senate EC votes than now. And Trump had a 244-187 edge in House EV.

After which Antigannon showed, correctly, that the proportionality did change, because more Reps means that "minimum of one" has a much smaller effect. I won't bother quoting it, you already did, so you either read it already or didn't bother.

Which you then followed with

But let's test the math a bit, shall we?

Under the Wyoming method, the result would have been 370-280 for Trump, or 56.92% of the EC. That's actually a 0.04% increase for Trump.

Under the founding fathers method, the result would have been 5875-4519 for Trump, or 56.52% of the EC. We've managed to shave off 0.4%! 'O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'

But let's take this exercise to its inevitable conclusion, why don't we. Using 1:1 representation, the result would have been 174,427,331-134,280,780 for Trump, or 56.50%. That's a whopping difference of 0.02%.

I've helpfully bolded the numbers that aren't zero.

Now, maybe you're about to say "I meant no significant change" at which I point out Antigannon meant to say "directly proportional", and he still wins.

It should also be noted that @cubby made a suggestion of 700 Reps. I know you saw his post too, you quoted it, hopefully you read it. You know what, here it is, just to be sure:

It would bring the House up to around 700 Reps - and would make the EC more proportional to population, and therefore make the EC vote closer to the popular vote. Not precisely, but if my math works out, close enough that President Hillary would have been a thing.

Assuming no other changes (Reps still worth 1, Senators are still worth 2) and these handy dot-gov results, I recomputed every state's EC on the new 800 total, which is what @cubby was saying when you jumped in and changed the rules. Guess what? I'm changing them back. You did say "original" after all. Changing to 700 EC votes is actually kind of fun. Maine gets 5 EC votes, yay! Montana gets 4 EC votes, yay! Wyoming gets...bad example, but New Mexico gets 7 EC votes, yay!

California gets 86 of them. As in "I just eighty-sixed your argument" by giving California 31 new votes.

Funny story, California's more than 10% of the country, picked up more than 10% of the newly-assigned reps, and just about individually eats everything the small red states scratched out, if they got any at all. True, Texas and Florida try their best to even the odds, but behind them are New York and Illinois cracking their knuckles and saying "we're next, motherfuckers".

And all of that even ignores the swap in EC votes' effect on campaigning. Pennsylvania just got nine. I don't think Clinton would have ignore those nine extra votes quite so much. But I digress.

Clinton's dominance in too many larger states, which just got a buttload of effectively unmatched EC votes, means in cubby's scenario Clinton wins 434 to 366. This thread would be about Clinton outlawing chokeholds and wondering why NK has been so quiet for three years. "Farmers going bankrupt" wouldn't even be on the list.

That sound you heard was me dropping the mic.

I don't know why you personally invited this three-on-one beatdown, but it'll be the last. I might be Chef Breccia, but you only get served once.

[cubby]

sigh but Biden is the confused one.

Interestingly enough, what I like a LOT about Biden, is that he could have made the same verbal gaffe - saying AIDS vaccine, and it's very easy to see him continuing with, "what did I just say? AIDS vaccine. Humph - I wish. Sorry about that, meant to say..." and we'd be back on track.

[Breccia]

we'd be back on track.

Part of "saying it like it is", but really meaning it, is saying when you're wrong.

If you claim you "say it like it is", but you lie, or make a mistake and don't fix it, then no, you're not "saying it like it is". You're making shit up.

- - - Updated - - -

And there it is.

Trump sues Bolton.

[Santti]

And there it is.

Trump sues Bolton.

What do you think will happen with this lawsuit? I'm guessing the book will be released regardless, even though Mr. Resident considers every conversation with him being highly classified (lol).

[Thepersona]

I think we're going to see this in all fifty: business owners making the decision to remain closed/careful, even if the state allows fewer restrictions. Especially at the local level, a lot of business owners don't want to kill their customers.

Or... you know... die.

[Poopymonster]

And remember, lockdowns may still be a thing in the coming weeks

Not in the US. States can't afford the loss of revenue, nor can big businesses afford the losses.

[Breccia]

What do you think will happen with this lawsuit?

Well I posted on this before, so I'll be brief: I think the publisher already has signed documents from the White House giving the green light, I think Trump is trying to back out of a signed contract again, I think more and more press and publishers are looking at Trump's attack against them and are done waiting their turn to be next, and I think the book will be leaked.